Do you think we're in the majority?

Threats of Gun control and the AWB has probably been the biggest contributor to the skyrocketing increase in guns sold.

I used to be the guy with one pistol and one rifle that only picked up small amounts of ammo just for the day of shooting. A box of hunting ammo and that's it.

Now I buy all I can.

If you dig back far enough, you'd probably find where I've bashed people for having more than two magazines.... I was not awake as much as I am now.
 
Glen E. Meyer said:
From my read of legit surveys (not politically motivated) -

1. A majority (but not massive) believe in the right to own a gun for SD.

2. A strong majority favor 'reasonable restrictions' that keep guns from criminals, like UBCs, mental health checks and the like.

3. A significant proportion don't see the need for the military derivative guns or high capacity handguns. SD can be handled with a shotugn and an SW Model 10.

# 2 and 3 will lead to restrictions, checks and bans as we see in states now. Heller and McDonald will not prevent such. Scalia is used to justify those. Gun world rhetoric - you only need 3 to 5 shots and a shotgun is the best - is also used to justify such.

A horrible incident can generate what is known as a moral panic and push through such laws or regulations.

These are more likely to occur in states where urban areas can dominate the legislatures.

The gun world doesn't help itself with stunts like take your 'crew' and ARs to Chipolte or Starbucks.
Click to expand...


I am curious as to what the typical person thinks about stuff like gun registration. Does the average person care about things like letting the government know that they have guns?
 
Threats of Gun control and the AWB has probably been the biggest contributor to the skyrocketing increase in guns sold.
Click to expand...
So? That doesn't translate into political action.

I was there. I ran a large gun shop during the Sandy Hook panic. The vast majority of new buyers wanted to get a gun because that's what everyone else was doing.

They knew that Obama or Feinberg or Schumaker or somebody was going to ban...something. A few of them recited slogans they'd heard on gun blogs or from friends. Few had any knowledge of the underlying politics, and fewer had any interest in being involved. All they cared about was getting an AR-15 before they got banned.

Very few of those people joined a gun-rights organization. Very few could name even one of their congressmen. Very few even voted. Once the media furor died down, those people stopped thinking about guns as a political issue.

When asked if they're politically involved, the most common response is, "I've got a gun." As if that entails participation in the process.

When the furor over "universal background checks" was at its height, I spoke with my representative. He was voting against it, but what concerned me was this: he represents a large, diverse district with nearly two million people. I was the fourth person who'd ever contacted him on the issue.

Getting "gun owners" to unite behind a cause is like herding cats. Yes, there are over 80 million "gun owners." How many of those will actually put forth the most minimal of efforts to protect our rights? It's a shamefully small percentage.
 
Yes you are correct. I still feel that very few actual gun owners help promote the cause. I really interjected unnecessary commentary on the increase of gun ownership.

Now the average american gun owner will support UBCs and similar steps toward gun control. I hear them, say things like "what are you trying to hide?" Or "I went through a background check"
I suspect most would walk right down and register them if required to do so.

Most gun owners will comply with whatever the law is. I would, you would and everyone on this board.

Now, "they" want total gun control. With each be law passed the phrase is always "this is an important FIRST step" or something like that. When they successfully get some new restriction passed, it's always a 'step' .... Meaning they aren't satisfied yet.
 
The gun banners are never satisfied. Even if they succeeded in banning every gun, no matter what make or kind, they would then go after knives, swords, non-lethal defensive tools, clubs, bats, etc. Next, they would outlaw self-defense training, sport fighting, ANYTHING that could be a threat to the individuals who seek to make all of society into the slaves for the elite.

Remember, gun-banners are those who do not want YOU to have a gun because it makes them feel like they do not have total control over you. And, after all, if you were king of the hill and got there by suppressing the masses from challenging your status, would you want the masses to have access to anything that could possibly violently terminate your elite privileges?
 
Last edited:
The gun world has a difficult time rationalizing the possession of military derivative guns like the ARs, AKs and higher cap semi pistols.

The NSSF and some gun rags went for the modern sporting rifle mantra which is terribly non convincing. Case it point - WalMart has ditched military style rifles to focus on sporting clays and hunting rifles. They ditched handguns awhile ago.

That's a strong cultural statement that the reason to own such is not convincing to all.

You can hunt perfectly well without an AR. So if the populace sees them as dangerous, why have them?

Just saying - it is my right and the 2nd Amend. says - blah, blah - will not cut it with folks not in the choir.

Rights are social constructs and come and go. Without mentioning topics, look at rights claimed and rights to be eliminated in recent history.

A cultural acceptance attack is powerful. It is working against smoking (as well it should). Look at CVS as they ditched tobacco products.

PS - here's a blurb from a NYTimes story:

Walmart to End Sales of Assault-Style Rifles in U.S. Stores
By HIROKO TABUCHI

The retailer will stop selling modern sporting rifles, which are similar to the AR-15 assault rifle, which has been used in prominent mass shootings. A Walmart spokesman, Kory Lundberg, said the retailer would stop selling modern sporting rifles, which are similar to the AR-15 assault rifle but are refashioned for the hunting market. He said Walmart would no longer sell any weapons that accept high-capacity ammunition magazines, the kind that can hold multiple rounds of ammunition.
Click to expand...

Walmart says it is for business reasons. Oh, yeah.
 
Walmart says it is for business reasons. Oh, yeah.
Click to expand...
In this particular case, I think it is. I'm not aware of WalMart being under any particular political pressure lately. The last few outrage shootings we've had involved handguns.

A more likely explanation is that they're not making money on AR-15's. The locations near me carried the low-end models, but everyone who wants one of those already has one. The market I've seen for the last year or so is folks upgrading or buying high-end builds. WalMart doesn't have the knowledge or contacts to make that work.

They've probably chosen to get rid of high-capital, low-margin products in favor of stuff that makes a larger, quicker profit. Like Donald Trump Hair fishing lures.
 
Right now I think the pro-gun side has more adherents than the anti-gun side, but the anti's are much more vocal. They use irrational, emotional arguments that sound "reasonable" to those less than fully focused on 2nd Amendment and gun issues. And I have found that the anti's have a totally irrational belief in the power of laws to make them safer. Even when you try to get them to focus on the failures of movements like prohibition of alcohol, and the endless "war on drugs" with the draconian punishments for hard drug dealing, both movements that have utterly failed to solve the problems that the laws were supposed to fix. Somehow they think that one more, or a few more gun control laws will suddenly make them safe and secure. When we cannot or will not seal our borders to stop whole humans from easily slipping into the country, does anyone think that if guns were banned we would not have wholesale smuggling of guns from outside the U.S.? Plus guns can be relatively easily manufactured and sold illegally. But the anti's do not want to hear about it, they just want a simple and clear action that will make the world safe for them and their children. So they call for more controls on the sale, use and possession of firearms, and those who are uninvolved in the fight easily give in and think it reasonable. Despite all the horrific things in the news, we on the pro-gun side are still winning the political and legal battles but we cannot get complacent and forget that those against us will never rest until all guns are confiscated and banned (and then when crime and violence continue unabated, they will try to come up with new laws that somehow magically will get society to where they think it should be).
 
The gun world has a difficult time rationalizing the possession of military derivative guns like the ARs, AKs and higher cap semi pistols.

The NSSF and some gun rags went for the modern sporting rifle mantra which is terribly non convincing. Case it point - WalMart has ditched military style rifles to focus on sporting clays and hunting rifles. They ditched handguns awhile ago.

That's a strong cultural statement that the reason to own such is not convincing to all.

You can hunt perfectly well without an AR. So if the populace sees them as dangerous, why have them?

Just saying - it is my right and the 2nd Amend. says - blah, blah - will not cut it with folks not in the choir.
Click to expand...

I cant see there ever being an all out ban on "modern sporting rifles" or "assault rifles" or whatever people want to call them. The only reason it may seem that an overwhelming majority of the country is so anti gun is because the media is liberal dominated, so they have a much larger outlet to put that perception out there. We have come to a boiling point in this country over the past decade or so, people are fed up with our government. Look what happened at the Bundy Ranch, look what happened when the ATF tried to ban M855, look what happened even in NY when they passed a bill limiting magazine capacity to 7rds that got overturned a few months later. People are less likely today to stand idly by and let another Nation wide AWB pass through like it did in the 90's, cant ever see that happening again.
 
Last edited:
ATTN08xx
I am curious as to what the typical person thinks about stuff like gun registration. Does the average person care about things like letting the government know that they have guns?
Click to expand...

I'd bet that they don't care; probably like 'Well, I need a registration to drive a car, so why not register to own a deadly weapon like a gun?"

In the long run, inertia and ignorance will win and registration will be the law of the land unless some event changes the direction of demographics and the perception of need by the general public.
 
In reality loosing any right is but an election away.

Once the memory of what a disaster of mess prohibition was fades away.

They are chipping away at other freedoms while we are distracted by gun rights.

Many places are attempting to force medical treatment. I'm not going to argue any points about vaccines either way, but the attempts of different local governments to force people to be vaccinated against their will bears huge implications against individual freedoms.

Anything is but a couple of election cycles away.

Most likely, some states will get even tighter gun restrictions while others will lessen. The west coast is on it's way out I predict. Even though washinton is full of gun nuts, enough will not vote on important initiatives.
 
Right now I think the pro-gun side has more adherents than the anti-gun side, but the anti's are much more vocal.
Click to expand...
To some extent, that may be correct. However, they have the mainstream media on their side. They have a greater capacity to shape public opinion on the matter.

Furthermore, define "pro-gun." Folks with our level of involvement? We're the minority, even within the gun culture. The average gun owner doesn't think there's anything wrong with "common sense" measures like "background checks" or bans on "assault weapons." He wonders why we make such a big deal about it.

That is, if he's even aware of the issue at all. Most gun owners are not politically active. Most don't even vote.

So like I said, I don't see an outright ban of these types of rifles ever happening.
Click to expand...
You'd be mistaken. Right now, things are looking very much like they did in the late 1960's. We have a lame-duck President who supports gun control and wants it to be part of his legacy. We've had the high-profile shooting of a politician. We have tremendous demographic tensions boiling over in some areas.

Congress resisted Johnson and Dodd's attempts to pass gun-control legislation. Then Robert Kennedy got shot. The next morning, the House passed the predecessor to the Gun Control Act. Nobody had a chance to fight it. We were blindsided. That can happen again.

As for bans, consider Nelson Shields. He was the founder of Handgun Control Inc, which now calls itself the Brady Campaign. This is what he had to say on the matter:

The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition–except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors–totally illegal.

We’re going to have to take this one step at a time. . . . Our ultimate goal—total control of all guns—is going to take time.
Click to expand...

The people he groomed and trained are the folks asking for "common sense" measures right now. Once they get a foot in the door, we can expect bans.
 
Background checks are going to get more in-depth.
This last shooting would have not red-flagged the shooter in the DROS.

They will start with the mental health issue and you can bet that if you
are receiving any government assistance because of a PTSD claim,
your firearms will be taken from you.

The mental condition of a gun owner is going to get scrutinized closely.

No one can come up with a cure-all solution for what is happening and
they will have to show they are trying to keep firearms from unstable
people.

You watch...
If you have a restraining order filed on you from a mean spirited spouse/friend... they will ask for your guns.

Something has to change and I don't see an easy answer.
 
I took the time to read through all of the comments, interesting thoughts guys. I agree with most in that the full-on pro 2a people are in the minority, and the people sitting on the fence can be quite a downfall to our cause. I think most anti gunners are pretty much stuck in their ways, and there is no changing their mind. Appealing to the people sitting on the fence seems to be the best approach I think... But that is difficult in our current climate.
 
Fence sitters will generally go the way that has the least negative labels placed on the matter at hand.... It's a good tool antis use.

Don't want to risk getting called names, so the fence sitters will side with the antis.

Gun nut
Anmosexual
Right wing
Constitutionalist

Any other non gun debate can be won by name calling... Take a real issue and throw out the phrase "tinfoil hat" and you will win.
 
The gun world has a difficult time rationalizing the possession of military derivative guns like the ARs, AKs and higher cap semi pistols.

The NSSF and some gun rags went for the modern sporting rifle mantra which is terribly non convincing. Case it point - WalMart has ditched military style rifles to focus on sporting clays and hunting rifles. They ditched handguns awhile ago.

That's a strong cultural statement that the reason to own such is not convincing to all.
Click to expand...

Glen, I agree with this. So, how would you try and pitch the importance of being allowed to own ARs, AKs and higher cap semi pistols to the non-gun public?
 
I would pitch them for the right of self-defense and the higher capacity guns for the more extreme but quite possible situations. I would try to come up with reasonable examples such as:

1. The Korean grocers in the Rodney King riots.
2. There's a story of a NRA employee using an AK in the Katrina disaster.
3. A young lady defending herself against looters in the Bastrop, TX fire aftermaths.

All of these argue against a Biden Special

In terms of defense against tyranny -

1. Social science research and the real world indicates that countries can go tyrannical and genocidal quite quickly. Unarmed populations are more likely victims of genocides. Some deny that the the Jews of Europe could have defended themselves but the Warsaw ghetto revolt suggests better to die on your own terms then be a lampshade.

2. In the USA - there is a clear and modern scholarly analysis of the Civil Rights movement having a strong armed component which supported MLK and similar activists. There are clear cases of armed self-defense against night riders supported by the local racist governments. If that isn't defense against tyranny - I don't know what is.

That's my take. The message has to be well tuned. It can't be to defend yourself against the tyranny of Obama care or something like that. Spouting the UN is coming is also going to make one look silly.
 
We are at critical times over gun issues.

It's very, very important we have these enlightening conversations with others to inform them. The uniformed public will vote away your and my gun rights without any thought based on emotions and lies.

WE gun owners are losing in public opinion. In the last year, we have been hammered due to the selfish and idiotic actions of big game sport hunters, certain politic baiting groups that incite violence and attacks on police, and crazy/evil people committing murders with guns.

WE must remind our friends and families that guns secure freedoms, allow the weak to defend oneself, and are key to the survival of independence; the stats against guns are lies and innocent deaths are a tiny fraction of the population and would occur whether it was by a person using a gun or knife or other weapon.

This recent shooting on TV - the shooter could have used a $20 machete and no background check to kill these same 3 people.

Let's not forget that in nations with total bans on guns there is still mass violence with other weapons, including dozens killed in knife attacks, car attacks, you name it.

Violence and evil cannot be eliminated. Removing guns simply disarms those that are victims.

Guns also protect us by acting as a deterrent against invading nations and our own government. This generally makes folks question your sanity so be prepared to back this up. Nations have been responsible for disarming and murdering tens of millions of their own citizens... The evidence is clear that the unique 2nd Amendment is the only reason our nation has not done the same while other world powers have systematically disarmed, enslaved, and murdered its own subjects.
 
You'd be mistaken. Right now, things are looking very much like they did in the late 1960's.
Click to expand...

i remember that time very well. The murders of RFK and Martin Luther King gave us the GCA 1968.


We have a lame-duck President who supports gun control and wants it to be part of his legacy. We've had the high-profile shooting of a politician. We have tremendous demographic tensions boiling over in some areas.
Click to expand...

We are one high profile murder away from an "assault weapons" ban, universal background checks and other serious gun control. Politicians who claim to support our cause would turn on us when confronted with massive demonstrations for gun control.

IMO: Put up for referendum, universal background checks would pass in most states.
 
I agree, if up to the public, we'd have outright bans.

When I moved to the Pacific Northwest, I got a huge eye opener. I got to see the power of money and initiatives put to public vote.

Two states full of the most gun loving citizens I've seen now have UBCs. (Because it's common sense) outside influences had a big effect, plus even though washington and oregon have a large population of gun enthusiast, libertarians, and constitutionalists.... They were still outnumbered in the ballot.

I'm sure any state would go that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top